Indiana Jonesing
315 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 13 Newer→ Last
-
-
And can I give Peggy Noonan props for being one of the very few voices in the Republican/right commentariat (along with George Will and, most of the time, David Brooks) who've kept it real and sane in their commentary on the Democratic primary.
It's all in the eye of the beholder I suppose but I don't really have time for right wingers slandering Clinton with the racist tag. It's sort of ironic.
-
It's all in the eye of the beholder I suppose but I don't really have time for right wingers slandering Clinton with the racist tag. It's sort of ironic.
Um, really? I'm tempted to snark back that the beholding has a little more value when the beholder knows what the hell he or she is talking about. Noonan and Will have both been very far from impressed with GOP demagoguery on immigration, for a start.
But, hey, let's go there: Republicans are all racists, Democrats are all terrorist-cuddling pussies, and I'll have my tea with milk and two spoons of sugar.
-
Noonan and Will have both been very far from impressed with GOP demagoguery on immigration, for a start.
Glad to hear it. It sill doesn't mean I'd take any notice of anything they had to say about the Democratic primary.
I suppose it's just that the criticism of Clinton has been more balanced - she gets ill-informed and bitter attacks from both ends of the political spectrum.
Anyone know how many men had very little chance (actually a lot less of a chance than Hillary) of gaining the nomination but fought all the way to the convention? Quite a few.
It does raise the issue of what's different this time round.
-
Race, gender, MyDD have some interesting observations about one of the other splits in the Dem party age.
-
Glad to hear it. It sill doesn't mean I'd take any notice of anything they had to say about the Democratic primary.
Fair enough, and as a rule I'd dismiss out of hand what most liberal commentators and outlets had to say about the Republican primary. Doesn't mean there's not insight, or even truth to be found.
Anyone know how many men had very little chance (actually a lot less of a chance than Hillary) of gaining the nomination but fought all the way to the convention? Quite a few.
And as I said up-thread, if Boehlert wants to assert that Reagan didn't face a storm of criticism and calls to pull out during him (nearly) successful primary challenge to a sitting president in 1976, then the only question in my mind is whether he's not done his research or is simply not letting facts get in the way of a pre-determined thesis -- i.e. is telling a big fat porkie pie.
BTW, Andrew Sullivan linked to an interesting fact-based rebuttal of the Clinton misogyny meme:
Sen. Hillary Clinton lost out in North Carolina last week, but most of the other women running for statewide office were victorious in Tuesday's primary. Some see the results as a sign that 2008 will be a landmark year for the increasing number of North Carolina women seeking top positions in public life.
[...]
Eleven women were on the ballot last week running in primaries for statewide elective office. Seven of them won their races by beating male opponents. An eighth, Winston-Salem's Mary Fant Donnan, was the top vote-getter in the Democratic primary for commissioner of labor, and may face a runoff.
The group of women is diverse, and so are the offices they are running for. They range from the state's very top elective offices to less prominent statewide positions, such as labor commissioner or N.C. Court of Appeals.
In November, the U.S. Senate race in North Carolina will pit two female candidates against each other: the Republican incumbent, Elizabeth Dole, and her Democratic challenger, Kay Hagan, a state senator from Greensboro. Both Dole and Hagan won landslide victories Tuesday over lesser-known opponents.
The governor's race also features a woman: Lt. Gov. Beverly Perdue beat State Treasurer Richard Moore in a hard-fought Democratic primary. Perdue, who is trying to become the state's first female governor, now faces another male candidate, Charlotte mayor Pat McCrory.
If North Carolina Democrats are seething with a pathological hatred of women (misogyny), they've got a damn funny way of showing it.
-
If North Carolina Democrats are seething with a pathological hatred of women (misogyny), they've got a damn funny way of showing it.
This kind of argument, Craig, is the rhetorical equivalent of 'because there are three women executives, sexism in business doesn't exist'. Incremental improvement in numbers of women running for office is great! But it doesn't mean that political campaigns are free from the kind of ideological framing that betray bias, sexism and (occasionally) misogyny.
-
This kind of argument, Craig, is the rhetorical equivalent of 'because there are three women executives, sexism in business doesn't exist'.
No it's not, Danielle. It strikes me as fair comment to point out that anyone who wants to frame Clinton's loss in NC -- which is hardly a liberal hotbed like Berkeley or Manhattan -- as some triumph of 'bros over hos' thinking, has to explain away the results down ticket. And we're not talking about a token chick standing for Dogpatch County Dog-Catcher, but the Democrats selecting woman to contest Senate and gubernatorial races I understand both parties regard as highly competitive.
Can we give a little credit where credit's due, and acknowledge both Elizabeth Dole Kay Hagan won their primaries by landslide margins, and they might just have brought a little more to the table than their genders?
-
If North Carolina Democrats are seething with a pathological hatred of women (misogyny), they've got a damn funny way of showing it.
I'm really am not sure why it is that the rules have all of a sudden been changed for Hillary.
Jessie Jackson fought all the way to the primary with half the delegates of the front runner.
But Hillary who will lose with 49% of the vote, consistently doing better than Obama in match-ups against McCain and with Democrat membership and participation at record levels and yet she is supposedly a self-obsessed destroyer. But the men who preceded her and did far worse than her were just considered honest fighters.
It's a bit weird what ever the reason.
-
should be -
Jessie Jackson fought all the way to the convention with half the delegates of the front runner.
-
It's a bit weird what ever the reason.
Well, I thought the whole 'inevitability' meme -- and the Clinton campaign's failure to strangle it at birth -- was more than a bit weird. (And with all due respect, Neil, did anyone seriously argue that Jackson was a serious candidate, let alone one whose accession to the White House hardly required tiresome formalities like winning a primary race, then a general election?)
With the benefit of hindsight, it might be seen as proof of the old axiom that a politician who starts to believe his (or her) own PR is in trouble. Or to put it old school style, Where hubris is seen, Nemesis is never far behind.
-
Jessie Jackson fought all the way to the convention with half the delegates of the front runner.
Yeah, but 'everyone' 'knew' he wasn't going to actually get the nomination so it was fine to let him run. Run Jessie, Run!
If Clinton had now the same numbers that Jackson had back then, she'd be 'allowed' to continue her run too. No-one ever complains as long as the front runner is never seriously threatened. -
I'm really am not sure why it is that the rules have all of a sudden been changed for Hillary.
Jessie Jackson fought all the way to the primary with half the delegates of the front runner.
Jackson made two runs - in 1984, and 1988. The world in general, and the political world, is a bit different these days. The phrase "don't fight to the convention, give it up now for the party" now has a lot more weight than it used to in American politics.
It used to be that these things were still actually decided at the convention, in a smoky back room.
-
Yeah, but 'everyone' 'knew' he wasn't going to actually get the nomination so it was fine to let him run. Run Jessie, Run
Ah, so he wasn't a self-obsessed destroyer he was merely allowed to run because he had zero chance. Whereas the message to Hillary is don't run - you might win. Interesting way to run a selection process.
The phrase "don't fight to the convention, give it up now for the party" now has a lot more weight than it used to in American politics.
But that assumes that her giving up is in the interest of the party.
Given that that argument is only put foward by Obama supporters and Obama will win with just a plurality of votes it looks a bit high-handed for just one half of the Democratic party to be telling the other half that they don't have the best interest of the party at heart.
The phrase has weight with some Obama supporters - not with a majority of voters and not even with Obama himself who only did the Hillary should drop out bit for a week or so - and decided it wasn't a good look. He's quite bright.
But things have changed - running a close race is now seen as some form of treachery. (I sort of suspect that this is a lot to do with it being so close and that each draws quite distinct and loyal support although the netroots have a lot to answer for).
-
I get a bit grumpy with the collective madness of the pundocracy but the good news is they are way out of touch with Democrat voters - 64 percent of whom want the race to continue.
59 percent of African-Americans want Hillary to be Obama's running mate. They're not paying attention to the pundits clearly.
-
But that assumes that her giving up is in the interest of the party.
Yes, I think that's somewhat implicit in the statement.
I don't know whether Hillary or her camp have made any comments on that line - it's possible that they have. If their argument is "it is good for democracy and the party for such a close race to continue to be run", that would make some sense. Could be right, could be wrong, difficult to tell.
The statements that I've seen have basically been "I'm going to win". Which might just be statements to rark up the supporters and keep them going, but as far as I can tell basic maths and logic disproves this. I hope there's a better reason not being publicly stated.
I don't particularly mind her going all the way, it'd be the most interesting Democratic National Convention since 1968. I just fail to see whats in it for her. If she doesn't have the VPship, or whatever else she wants by now, she's not going to earn it in West Virginia or Oregon.
I do think it's entered the stage where it's destructive for the party, though not 'general election losing destructive', but more 'two sides of the party will find it increasingly difficult to come back together strongly' destructive. I think it'll have an impact upon close downstream races - congress, senate etc - and could affect future elections. The general isn't looking like being close enough at this stage for it to swing.
It does feel very much like life imitating the West Wing however.
-
The statements that I've seen have basically been "I'm going to win". Which might just be statements to rark up the supporters and keep them going, but as far as I can tell basic maths and logic disproves this. I hope there's a better reason not being publicly stated.
Apologies if this comment has been made before, but so long as she's campaigning along those lines (if you say anything less than "I'm going to win", effectively you're not running!), instead of giving us the spiel about hard working white voters of the immediate post-Indiana and North Carolina phase, that's a help to Obama. As very many pundits have observed, she's going to win in West Virginia and Kentucky by several country miles, and it wouldn't look good if the presumptive nominee got trounced by somebody who is not even campaigning. That said, nothing I've heard coming from her after the white voters comment makes me think she's going to take this to the convention. McAuliffe himself suggested they're going to stay through to June 3rd. Barring some huge surprises in the upcoming primaries, she won't go further, and might in fact very well concede after Oregon.
It does feel very much like life imitating the West Wing however.
True that. And is McCain the perfect match for Alda's character or what? If I lived near a nuclear plant in the States I'd be a little nervous just about now.
-
Barring some huge surprises in the upcoming primaries, she won't go further, and might in fact very well concede after Oregon.
OK, but why? Why not concede after losing NC, and Indiana being so close? Financially this must be really starting to hurt.
-
OK, but why? Why not concede after losing NC, and Indiana being so close? Financially this must be really starting to hurt.
There's a theory that she's negotiating her exit and how much of her campaign's debts will be paid for by Obama, so a few more days may not hurt her much or even help her financially. And there's the other reason just stated of not conceding until after Kentucky in order to not hurt the nominee.
If you go back to her speech in Indiana, the first item was an attempt to spin the day as a huge victory by using a dumb Obama quote, but it was really lame and came out flat; the second was a request for money; the third one was a pledge to campaign for the nominee. I was struck by that last one in particular, we hadn't heard it from her in a while. I think she was pretty much conceding then. And when she came back the next day with that unseemingly reference to white voters, you could interpret it as a way to tout her support, and therefore how much she still matters to the party and to Obama, rather than an act of campaigning for the nomination per se.
She's not dumb, she knows she's done. Anybody who thinks she should have given up before North Carolina and Indiana is crazy, though.
-
I get a bit grumpy with the collective madness of the pundocracy but the good news is they are way out of touch with Democrat voters - 64 percent of whom want the race to continue.
On the other hand, a Pew survey on the same day found: "A majority (51%) of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters now says the undecided nomination contest is bad for the party, up from 27% in late February. "
-
I do think it's entered the stage where it's destructive for the party, though not 'general election losing destructive', but more 'two sides of the party will find it increasingly difficult to come back together strongly' destructive.
I think the end game could possibly become destructive. Here I think Clinton has to play things quite carefully. But since the last primaries aren't that close there's a good chance things will cool down a bit. I'd be really interested to know what Hllary's after as a bottom line, and what Obama might be prepared to offer.
On the other hand...
polls, eh. I tried to find some sort of poll average on this but RealClear don't seem to have one. But they do have both Obama and Clinton continuing to move ahead of McCain. So if that's the bottom line then there's no damage, in fact the reverse.
But that could all change. If there was clear evidence that her continued campaign could lead to a lose in Nov then I'd say she should stop.
-
I get a bit grumpy with the collective madness of the pundocracy but the good news is they are way out of touch with Democrat voters - 64 percent of whom want the race to continue.
59 percent of African-Americans want Hillary to be Obama's running mate. They're not paying attention to the pundits clearly.
Oh, Sweet Bubby Jebus... Neil, love you and love your work but one of my big issues with the 'punditocracy' -- both foreign and domestic -- is that no matter how many times polls are mis-reported, statistically or methdologically flawed or flat out wrong, they'll still cluster around pollsters like a primitive tribe breathlessly waiting for the oracles to throw another bucket of fresh entrails up against the wall.
-
The WaPo has a fascinating, if slightly chilling, story on various expressions of racist sentiment encountered by Obama campaign workers.
And the CJR raps the Financial Times for its portrayal of West Virginia.
-
The WaPo story is interesting, but also reinforces the idea that Obama can't win because America is 'not ready for a Black President'. From Page 2 of the story:
In a letter to the editor published in a local paper, Tunkhannock Borough Mayor Norm Ball explained his support of Hillary Clinton this way: "Barack Hussein Obama and all of his talk will do nothing for our country. There is so much that people don't know about his upbringing in the Muslim world. His stepfather was a radical Muslim and the ranting of his minister against the white America, you can't convince me that some of that didn't rub off on him.
"No, I want a president that will salute our flag, and put their hand on the Bible when they take the oath of office."
That's the freakin Mayor ferchissakes! And he's willing to put it all in a letter and have it published!!
-
The WaPo story is interesting, but also reinforces the idea that Obama can't win because America is 'not ready for a Black President'.
I have no doubt that some New Zealanders were not ready for (and have always resented) a female prime minister. Yet here we are.
And I'm sure there are many people in the States who would have voted for the democratic candidate this november but are not going to on account of his race. That doesn't mean that America is not ready or that he's not going to win. I think many more people will vote for him because of who he is and that includes the colour of his skin.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.